Aryan95614/aerograph-asrs huggingface dataset:
Aircraft: B777
Phase of flight: Descent
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Aircraft X was descending via the RNAV arrival. Aircraft Y was from the south and also descending via the WITTI2 arrival. The aircraft were initially tied. Aircraft Y started down first and slowed anywhere from 10-80 knots slower than Aircraft X. Spacing was building steadily between the two aircraft. When the two aircraft were just about in trail; there was 6.5 miles with Aircraft Y 10-30 knots slower. Less than a minute later there was 6 miles with Aircraft Y and still 10-30 knots slower. Passing it off as a bad hit; I knew the spacing was fine with the speeds shown. I reduced Aircraft Y to 250 Knots to insure the separation remained. Maybe a minute later; around the time to handoff the aircraft to Approach; I saw that space had decreased again to 4.84 miles with Aircraft Y still showing slower! By this time; the aircraft were entering TRACON Airspace. Knowing that they only needed 4 miles between the aircraft; I just shipped them over.I am completely baffled by this scenario. How could I lose separation with 6.5 miles and faster in front? We replayed the data from TRACON's radar feed and it showed an overtake situation. We are waiting to pull the data from our facility to see what ours showed. I do not recall an overtake the entire time I was watching this. Talking to a veteran controller that has been in this facility for over 25 years; he said he has seen this happen too. He said he saw separation decreasing with faster in front as they were approaching the gate at the TRACON boundary. We do have a radar outage at one site but we still have coverage from other radar sires. I don't know that this would affect anything. I don't have any recommendations yet. There shouldn't be a disparity between what the targets are doing and what the speeds say. The Controller reported the Center data was displaying different ground speeds than the TRACON radar data was processing. A Center controller reported an aircraft was overtaking a leading aircraft even though the ground speed readouts indicated the trailing aircraft was slower.
Aircraft: B757
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical

Cabin altitude - red - EICAS at FL370. [We] donned oxygen masks; [requested priority handling]; and performed [an] emergency descent. [The cause was the] pressurization controller. [I suggest that the] cabin rate trend indicator displays directly in front of pilots. B757-200 First Officer reported a loss of cabin pressure inflight; resulting in an emergency descent.
Aircraft: C210
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

I used ForeFlight on my iPad to file and brief an IFR flight plan from Great Falls to Springbank airport (west of Calgary). However; when I got in the airplane to program the route into my airplane's GPS I failed to input one waypoint; namely; Cutbank.As I was flying north from Great Falls; my airplane's zoomed-in GPS showed me on the centerline of my route; but my iPad showed me getting more and more to the right of course. The controller queried me as to whether I was heading straight to Lethbridge instead of to Cutbank; and that was when I realized my mistake. I was heading to Lethbridge; because I had omitted inputting the Cutbank waypoint. Lesson one: Be sure to double-check when programming the route from the listing on the iPad to the airplane's GPS. Lesson two: Believe the VOR when it shows you off the airway. A Cessna Turbo 210 pilot suffered a track deviation when he misprogrammed his IFR route into the aircraft's GPS based navigation system. ATC advised of the deviations and the reporter corrected the error.
Aircraft: MEDIUM TRANSPORT; LOW WING; 2 TURBOJET ENG
Phase of flight: Takeoff / Launch
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft

Aircraft X was put into position on the runway and appropriate traffic calls were made. Aircraft Y landed on an intersecting runway and was told to turn right at taxiway and hold short of the runway for the departing traffic. The pilot read back the instructions and complied. Aircraft X was cleared for takeoff. On departure roll the ASDE-X alarmed and displayed a conflict between Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. I observed Aircraft Y holding short of the runway; stationary; as instructed. Aircraft X departed safely. The ASDE-X alarmed in error and should be checked for accuracy to ensure it is operating correctly. RDG Local Controller reported a false ASDE-X warning. An arrival was holding short of an active runway with a departing aircraft when the warning sounded. The Controller visually confirmed the arrival was holding short and the takeoff was uneventful.
Aircraft: PA28
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

After being cleared to land we began our descent from 2;500 FT MSL. The controller called us as traffic to another aircraft and asked us to maintain 2;500 FT. We leveled at 2;400 FT and began looking for traffic when I noticed him coming straight at us. I took control of the aircraft simultaneously pushing the nose over and advised tower we were descending. He abruptly told us that before beginning a descent that he needed to know. I stated it was a noise abatement maneuver as we were on a collision course. GA flight instructor reported a near-mid-air-collision after receiving a clearance to land.
Aircraft: COMMERCIAL FIXED WING
Phase of flight: Parked
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury

On [date]; on my last flight of the night I thought I may have experienced some very mild symptoms of being ill. In the past; I have experienced mild symptoms before and have felt 100 percent better the next day. The next day; I reported for a two day trip and felt absolutely fine to work. Again; I felt completely fine to work; and I would never deliberately go to work while feeling sick. After my trip was completed; I experienced symptoms of being ill; and decided to set up a COVID test. I took my COVID test and received a positive test result. I have been quarantining since I took the test.I believe that not flying while possibly being ill would prevent this from happening again. If I could do things differently; I would not have flown with the possibility of being sick. Flight Attendant reported having mild symptoms of being ill; but decided to take another two day trip. Flight Attendant continued to feel ill after the two day trip warranting a COVID test; which was positive.
Aircraft: A300
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

GPS jamming was being conducted. In accordance with FOM (Flight Operations Manual) a mandatory report is required in the event of 'GPS interference; jamming; or navigation disruption.' With the latest revision to the FOM this report is now required to be entered in the AML (Aircraft Maintenance Log). I inadvertently forgot to make an AML entry after I had made two other entries for maintenance related items. As there is nothing wrong with the aircraft GPS equipment when GPS jamming is being conducted; it is easy to forget to make an AML entry. I have previously brought attention to our Flight Safety Department the fact that GPS interference testing is not being included in our NOTAMS. The notifications are available at faasafety.gov. There is additional interference testing going on throughout [this month]. I doubt these will be entered in our company NOTAMS. It is rather frustrating to see in our NOTAMS over two pages on latitude-longitude coordinates for cranes at PHX but none for GPS interference testing which our company now requires an AML entry; a Flight Safety report; and a Security Report.A new requirement for an AML entry in the event of GPS jamming was inadvertently overlooked. Change the FOM mandatory report table to read 'unknown' or 'unforecast' GPS interference; jamming; or navigation disruption and include FAA published GPS interference testing advisories in company NOTAMS. Not doing so leads to willful noncompliance with the FOM. A300 Captain reported they failed to document a GPS jamming event in the Aircraft Maintenance Log.
Aircraft: B737
Phase of flight: Cruise
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

Checked on with Oakland Center and were cleared direct to NRRLI and to descend via the SERFR 3. I mistakenly went direct to NARWL; a similar sounding fix. I put it in the FMC and executed. The Captain was on the PA at the time. When he came back I told him of our clearance and shortly after was asked by ATC if we were going to NRRLI intersection. I said that we were and the Controller then corrected the mistake. Continued the flight with no further error. Cleared to a way point/ went to wrong fix. Enroute to MAKRS; Oakland Center cleared us to what we thought was NARWL way point and to descend via the SERFR 3 Arrival to SFO. A few minutes later Center questioned us on our course; when we reported that we were going to NARWL; the Center Controller then re-cleared us to NRRLI; which was where he had originally intended for us to go; and to descend via the SERFR 3; the remainder of the flight was uneventful. The fact that two similar sounding way points on the arrival was confusing. Two similar sounding way points names can be confusing. Maybe change one of the names on the SERFR 3 Arrival. B737 Flight Crew reported navigating to wrong; similar sounding waypoint.
Aircraft: CRJ900
Phase of flight: Initial Approach
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe

During flight we were on final approach to Runway XXR. At approximately 200 feet above ground level; I heard a loud bang and saw some motion or light refraction at the Captain's window. I looked over to the left and noticed the Captain's front window was cracked. ATC was notified of the cracked window. We landed normally and taxied to the gate. During post flight no evidence of a bird strike was found. We were unable to determine the cause of the cracked window. During post flight no evidence of a bird strike was found. CRJ-900 First Officer reported the cockpit window cracked on approach to landing.
Aircraft: LEARJET 35
Phase of flight: Landing
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe

We were cleared for the visual approach. On about a 5 to 7 mile final while conducting the Before Landing Checklist; the landing gear handle was moved to the 'down' position. After the landing gear was finished cycling; it was noted that the right main landing gear 'down' light was not illuminated. The landing gear was recycled; and again the right main landing gear 'down' light did not illuminate. I notified Tower that we were not receiving an indication that our right main landing gear was down and locked and that we would like to do a low approach and have them look to see if they saw all three landing gear down and the landing lights on. After the low approach; we were informed by the Tower that they could see all three landing gear and the main landing gear lights were on; and then asked what we would like to do. I informed the Tower we were running our checklists but would like to stay in the pattern while we conducted the checklists. We were then asked by the Tower if we would like the fire trucks standing by when we made our landing; which I replied 'Sure'. After discussing the situation in the cockpit; it was the conclusion of both pilots that the light bulb was most likely burnt out and the landing gear was indeed down and locked; and a normal landing should be made. However; just to make sure the landing gear was actually down and to avoid any problems; the Emergency Landing Gear Extension Checklist was run and the landing gear was 'blown down' using the nitrogen bottle. The landing was made normally; and after landing; the fire trucks pulled up next to the aircraft to inspect it and verify that everything was OK. After we relayed everything was fine; they drove off and the airplane was taxied the FBO where service was then set up by the Director of Maintenance. The aircraft was serviced and flown home the next day without incident. LR35 Captain notes the failure of the right main landing gear down light to illuminate after gear extension during approach. A go around is initiated and the Tower advises that the gear appear to be down. To make sure the emergency landing extension checklist is run and the gear is blown down followed by a safe landing.
Aircraft: SMALL AIRCRAFT; LOW WING; 1 ENG; FIXED GEAR
Phase of flight: Final Approach
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC

I was descending on a 4 mile left base to Runway 32L at Buchanan Field in Concord; CA (CCR); in a low wing aircraft. I was doing so at the command of the FAA Control Tower at said airport. I started a descent at approximately 3000 ft MSL. During this descent I heard the Tower clear a Cessna aircraft for a touch and go on runway 32L. There were several other aircraft in the pattern on Runway 32R. I heard no other communication from the Tower concerning 32L. At a distance of approximately one (1) mile on base a Cessna high wing aircraft passed left to right below my aircraft at a vertical distance of approximately fifty (50) feet. The white Cessna aircraft appeared from below my left wing flying diagonally from my wing to fuselage. I clearly saw the two occupants in the front seats. They did not look up and did not appear to see my aircraft pass above them as they proceeded downwind in the pattern. At no time did the radar equipped Tower warn of an impending collision. I was given permission to land and after landing I reported the near midair collision. I was told to call the Tower after parking and engine shut down. When I did so and described the event I was told that their (the CCR Tower) radar coverage was 'spotty' in that direction. The Tower person also said I was asked to report a two (2) mile base. I did not receive that radio call from the Tower; nor was I warned of the near midair collision.Visibility at the time of this incident was approximately five (5) miles in haze. I think the Tower Controller might have been distracted by the relatively heavy traffic on the parallel Runway 32R. It would be best if the radar coverage to the southwest was continuous at the CCR Tower. This should be repaired or fixed immediately. General aviation pilot on a visual approach to CCR experiences a NMAC with a Cessna on downwind not reported by the Tower. When queried after parking; the Tower indicates that their Radar is 'spotty' in the southwest quadrant.
Aircraft: CRJ700
Phase of flight: Landing
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT

After flying the published RNAV procedure for Runway 21; and then getting the runway in sight visually an EGPWS (Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System) sounded at approximately 300 ft AGL. The aircraft was on the glide slope and in a position to land. After receiving the EGPWS alert an EGPWS [escape] maneuver and subsequent go around were performed and the aircraft landed safely the opposite direction.The aircraft had flown the published RNAV approach and proceeded visually to the runway on the glide slope. I am not sure what could've been done to prevent it. It's possible that we shouldn't land on Runway 21 in ZZZ if this was in fact an actual EGPWS warning. The aircraft was stabilized and on glide for a normal landing into ZZZ on Runway 21. While flying the published RNAV for Runway 21 and getting the runway in sight visually an EGPWS terrain warning sounded at 300 ft AGL while following the PAPI for landing Runway 21. An EGPWS escape maneuver was performed and subsequent go around. We landed the aircraft safely on the opposite runway.Unsure of contributing factor. At the time of the warning we had the runway visually on final approach and we were following the PAPI. CRJ-700 flight crew reported a ground proximity warning at approximately 300 feet while on glideslope with runway visual contact.
Aircraft: A321
Phase of flight: Initial Approach
Anomaly: Other laser

On approach the First Officer and I were lasered. The First Officer had a direct hit and later had headaches and experienced disorientation. A321 Captain reported being struck by a laser on approach to SAN; resulting in disorientation and headaches for the First officer.
Aircraft: AIRLINER 99
Phase of flight: Climb
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

I just departed on an initial ATC heading. I entered IMC conditions shortly after takeoff continuing during the climb out. I noticed a heading flag on the Captain's side HSI and immediately looked to the Co-pilot's side HSI and observed the course headings disagreed by more than 20 degrees. I used the information from the right side HSI to return the aircraft to the correct assigned heading. With the plane back on the correct heading I looked over to the right side electrical panel and noticed the breaker for the Captain's side HSI was tripped. Per the Company OPSPECS I reset the breaker; and the HSI returned to normal operations. I was then handed off to the next controller. I informed the next controller I suffered a primary Nav failure on climb-out which caused a momentary course deviation but the instrument was now working. About a minute into the flight and one mile north of the airport the Captain became aware of the failure by the appearance of the heading flag on the left HSI and confirmed the failure by referencing the copilot HSI. The cause of the deviation was the failure of the Captains primary navigation display immediately after take off in IMC conditions. I informed the next controller I had a nav failure that fortunately I was able to reset. Upon reaching our destination I notified the Dispatcher; the Head of Maintenance; and the Station Manager that I had a primary nav failure. An entry of the failure was made in the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook.The event was caused by an equipment failure. Equipment failures will occur often without warning; and I critical times of flight. I was able to handle the failure by training and experience. There is no way to prevent equipment failures; we can only learn how to manage failures with training. Beech 99 Captain reported that an HSI failure during climb resulted in a course deviation.
Aircraft: PC-24
Phase of flight: Climb
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance

Pilot Flying was undergoing Supervised Operating Experience 'Mentoring' on the Pilatus PC-24 for single pilot operations.After checking on the pilot in the climb at FL430 and FL440 I returned to my seat in the cabin where I had a birddog position to watch the pilot with ATC on the overhead speaker. Pilot was climbing in PIT (PITCH) mode aware of the dangers in climbing in that mode. Many pilots like to climb in Pitch mode through FL300 at it gives the passengers a smoother ride and allows the pilot to reach cruising altitude without hunting in FLC or VS.At FL443 I heard the Center controller Yell in a DEMANDING VOICE 'I need you at FL450 in 1 minute or less.'Hearing this exclamation; I ran to the flight deck to see the pilot's reaction. The Pilot Flying selected Manual Speed on the Autothrottle and dialed the speed back. (A common technique for climbing in Autothrottle FMS mode is when a controller asks you to expedite the climb you switch to Manual Speed on the Autothrottle and dial back 20-30 knots -- this will command the APFDS to pitch up exchanging airspeed for altitude); however; in this situation; the pilot didn't realize that dialing the speed back in PITCH mode would actually retard the throttles to IDLE.The Pilot [Flying] immediately corrected for the situation; however; once the aircraft lost the energy; the plane would no longer be able to reach assigned altitude. The Controller under a lot of pressure from the government shutdown clearly took his stress on the situation that required the pilot to get to FL450 in 1 minute or less out on the Pilot Flying and hit him over and over again with radio calls task saturating the pilot. The Pilot Flying did a great job on flying the aircraft; lowering the nose to break the approaching stall; and finally when he had a minute to breathe; informed the controller he needed lower.The pilot was ground schooled after the incident that he should of 'Declared an Emergency for Safety' and told the controller of the situation.The Pilot Flying now learned how to manage that type of situation and more importantly how to manage ATC in an emergency. PC24 Check Pilot reported the pilot in training did not comply with ATC clearance.
Aircraft: COMMERCIAL FIXED WING
Phase of flight: Taxi
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway

Ground cleared us to taxi to Runway 08R after crossing Runway 13 via L; hold short L. As we taxied to 08R via L; there was Aircraft Y holding short of 08R at L4. The Captain (CA) pulled in behind the Aircraft Y as it was taxing onto Runway 08R. I told the CA we were cleared to L; but this was my first time to this runway; and he said they usually want us at L4. I contacted ground to verify. Ground stated they cleared us to L not L4; but if we were able to depart L4; we could depart 08R at L4. The CA said yes we can take the L4 as the full length runway was 11;500 feet and L4 would not be an issue.The main contributing factor was the Aircraft Y holding short of L4 of 08R in which we pulled in behind. This was night time; and the signage could be brighter for taxing to L; as you must veer to the right; and loop around back to Runway 08R. The crew was given clearance to depart 08R at L4 by Ground Control prior to taxing onto the runway.L4 at 08R is well lit at night and very wide with lots of room. During night operations; crews should incorporate the possibility of pulling up to L4; and not L due to the size of the taxiway. The lesson I learned was to always contact Ground to confirm; should any confusion arise with where they cleared you to taxi to. We received taxi instructions to taxi to Runway 8R via Taxiway L after crossing another runway. We were at the Taxiway L/L4 intersection and due to poor lighting and nighttime conditions it was difficult to determine our location at that time. We taxied past the taxiway directional sign array and there was no ground-based location marking for Taxiway L4. At this intersection for L4 and L; L4 leads to the threshold markings. Because we were unfamiliar with this area; we presumed that we were staying on L when in fact we turned on to L4. We held short of 8R and we were advised by Tower that we turned on to wrong taxiway. There was no incursion or safety hazard.Contributing factors to this situation were: Poor lighting; unfamiliarity with this area of the airport. Nighttime conditions; new crew; possible inadequate airport marking.In order to prevent a situation like this from happening again we will better identify threats such as unfamiliarity and environmental factors that may lead to confusion during ground operations. Additionally; the airport markings at this intersection and or environment could be improved to help pilots new to this airport navigate well on the ground. Thus; enhancing airport operational safety. Air carrier flight crew reported that poor lighting; inadequate airport markings; night time conditions; and lack of familiarity with the CYVR airport resulted in a taxiway incursion.